Copyright by Clara Marie Hecht 2020
The Report Committee for Clara Marie Hecht Certifies that this is the approved version of the following Report:
Pathways of Reconciliation: Evaluating Arab-Jewish Youth Encounter Programs in Israel in an Age of Political Gridlock
APPROVED BY SUPERVISING COMMITTEE:
Jeremi Suri, Supervisor
David Eaton
Pathways of Reconciliation: Evaluating Arab-Jewish Youth Encounter Programs in Israel in an Age of Political Gridlock
by
Clara Hecht
Report Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
The University of Texas at Austin May 2020 Dedication
To my parents, who have always supported and encouraged me to continue my education in this field. Thank you for teaching me the importance of resiliency, responsibility, and keeping an open mind.
Acknowledgements
I would like to extend my sincerest thanks and appreciation to my supervisor Jeremi Suri and my reader David Eaton, both of whom were patient and encouraging mentors throughout this process. I would also like to thank Dr. Eaton for facilitating the eye-opening trip to Jerusalem which piqued my interest in this topic. Finally, I want to thank the representative Ayelet Roth from Hand in Hand, and Rawan Bisharat from Sadaka-Reut, for taking the time to share their stories and work toward coexistence. Their perseverance in the face of adversity and steadfast commitment to peace is truly inspiring.
v Abstract
Pathways of Reconciliation: Evaluating Arab-Jewish Youth Encounter Programs in Israel in an Age of Political Gridlock
Clara Marie Hecht, M.A.
The University of Texas at Austin, 2020
Supervisor: Jeremi Suri
Efforts working toward a “peace process” in the Arab-Israeli conflict have become increasingly fruitless, continually resulting in political gridlock and doing little to heal a deeply conflicted and divided society. This report demonstrates the necessity of promoting a process of reconciliation rather than focusing on a top-down political resolution in order to address social and psychological barriers to coexistence that exist among Jews and Arabs living in Israel. The first half of this report discusses intergroup contact theory as a means to conflict reconciliation, which acts as the theoretical foundation for encounter organizations. The second half provides an in-depth analysis of two unique present-day encounter organizations in Israel: Hand in Hand, a network of schools seeking to foster
Arab-Jewish relations through shared, bilingual education, and Sadaka-Reut, an Arab- Jewish youth partnership organization working toward a binational society. Both organizations are evaluated based on the extent to which they meet five conditions
vi associated with productive encounters. Recommendations for organizational improvement are made based on each case study’s evaluation.
vii Table of Contents
Introduction ...... 1
Chapter 1: Distinguishing Between Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation ...... 3
Chapter 2: Social Contact Theory & Encounter Groups ...... 10
Social Contact Theory Conditions ...... 11
Justification for a Fifth Condition: Friendship Potential ...... 12
Background to Encounter Groups...... 14
Chapter 3: Hand in Hand Case Study ...... 18
Education in Israel ...... 18
Organizational Overview ...... 21
Analysis & Evaluation ...... 23
Equal Status ...... 24
Equal Status Regarding Bilingual Language Policy ...... 26
Common Goals & Intergroup Cooperation...... 30
Support of Authorities, Law, or Custom ...... 32
Friendship Potential ...... 34
Recommendations ...... 36
Create an Incentive for Jewish Students to Attend ...... 36
Improve Application of Bilingual Model ...... 36
Funding ...... 37
Expansion ...... 38
viii Chapter 4: Sadaka-Reut Case Study ...... 40
Organizational Overview ...... 40
Analysis & Evaluation ...... 42
Equal Status ...... 42
Common Goals & Intergroup Cooperation...... 44
Support of Authorities, Law, or Custom ...... 45
Friendship Potential ...... 46
Recommendations ...... 47
Reframe Program Perceptions ...... 47
Improve Friendship Potential ...... 48
Conclusion ...... 50
Bibliography ...... 52
ix Introduction
Efforts working toward a shared society in the Arab-Israeli conflict have made limited progress due to both political gridlock and constant accusations of either side’s unwillingness to cooperate. Even at times when dialogue and potential solutions appear to be possible, groups on both sides have taken actions to undermine any possibility of a lasting solution. As of 2020, the notion of relying on current political leaders to take steps toward the creation of a society where both populations can live together in harmony does not appear hopeful.
It is easy to become pessimistic when viewing the possibility of a shared society in
Israel through a top-down, political framework. Many citizens whose daily lives are affected by the realities of the conflict are already hardened by the failure of their political leaders and the international community. Focusing on a top-down political solution to solve an incredibly complex conflict may not be effective for improving on-the-ground conditions for Palestinians with Israeli citizenship or permanent resident status as well as overall relations between the Jewish and Palestinian populations. Small-scale efforts aimed at promoting peace and equality between the two populations can be and have been successful at enhancing communication and inter-community understanding. Bypassing the gridlock of political actors and producing real and long-lasting effects, grassroots reconciliation organizations challenge the notion that peace is impossible. Such organizations, run by both Jewish and Palestinian individuals committed to peace, remain oases of hope and reason to remain optimistic about the future of the region.
1 This paper explores and evaluates how two unique grassroots organizations foster connections between the Jewish and Palestinian population to promote a binational, shared society that has the potential to create concrete and far-reaching change. This research is based on my personal experience in Israel/Palestine studying non-profit organizations working toward peaceful coexistence and draws on the effectiveness of intergroup contact theory in changing deep-rooted discrimination and stereotypes. I suggest that these organizations address core issues of the conflict essential to a future of coexistence that a political agreement alone would fail to address. The ways in which these organizations engage individuals in the reconciliation process through meaningful interpersonal contact and dialogue highlights the effectiveness of “micro” peacebuilding. These case studies of two youth encounter organizations attempting to foster the reconciliation process report on a positive and realistic improvement in Arab-Jewish relations, at least on a small scale. The first part of this paper discusses social contact/intergroup contact theory as a means to conflict reconciliation. This theory provides a basis for encounter organizations. The second half of this paper evaluates two encounter organizations in Israel on the extent to which they meet five conditions associated with productive encounters. Recommendations for organizational improvement are then made based on each case study’s evaluation.
2 Chapter 1: Distinguishing Between Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation
One tactic of dialogue for improving relations between Jews and Arabs has centered around a political resolution. Discussions about a “peace process” are frequent; however, there are few political processes, procedures, or strategies that would effectively address the existing social and psychological barriers to long-lasting peace. As such, it is important to distinguish between “conflict resolution,” which focuses on creating an agreement among political leaders and elites, and the process of “conflict reconciliation.”
Reconciliation may be essential among populations that have experienced a protracted zero-sum conflict that involves extensive violence, has many casualties, and accumulates animosity and hatred.1 Conflict resolution scholar Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov defines reconciliation as “restoring friendship and harmony between the rival sides...or transforming relations of hostility and resentment to friendly and harmonious ones.”2
Reconciliation is a healing process that goes beyond conflict resolution; it attempts to address the “cognitive and emotional barriers to normalization and stabilization of peace relations.”3 Some elements of the process include mutual recognition of one another’s national identity, the “internalization of peace values,” and a willingness to participate in
1 Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov, “Introduction: Why Reconciliation?” in From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation, ed. Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 4. 2 Bar-Siman-Tov, 4. 3 Bar-Siman-Tov, 4. 3 this process.4 While the process, unlike a political agreement, is slow, it is the most important condition for making progress toward stable peace.5 Bar-Siman-Tov explains,
Only reconciliation can build mutual trust and provide mutual assurances for maintaining peace...Reconciliation is probably the most difficult condition because it asks for deep cognitive change, a real change of beliefs, ideology, and emotions not only among the ruling elites but also among most if not all sectors of both societies…6
Bar-Siman-Tov describes the difference between what I have referred to as a “top-down political resolution” and a bottom-up process of reconciliation that focuses on contact, mutual understanding, and forming relationships:
Whereas the liberal approach in international relations emphasizes the need to accelerate the security, economic, and political cooperation between the sides, thereby enabling the peace to spill over from the ruling elites to all sectors of the population, the social psychological approach stresses the cognitive and emotional aspects of reconciliation.7
Political resolution and reconciliation are not mutually exclusive; in fact, both are needed to move forward from a protracted conflict. However, politics and poor leadership continue to afflict the so-called “peace process” within the specific context of the Arab-
Israeli conflict. Leadership on both sides have failed, and neither demonstrates a willingness to invest adequate effort in reaching a final-status agreement. Professor Dr.
Kelman of Harvard University describes the grim reality of the “off-again/on-again” peace process:
There are serious questions whether the leadership on either side has the capacity to make the concessions required for a final-status agreement… it is not clear
4 Bar-Siman-Tov, 5. 5 Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov, “Israel-Egypt Peace: Stable Peace?” in Stable Peace Among Nations, ed. Arie M Kacowicz et al (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2000), 273. 6 Bar-Siman-Tov, 273. 7 Bar-Siman-Tov, 5. 4 whether his [Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] conception of the future Palestinian state meets the minimum conditions of his Palestinian interlocuters...President Mahmoud Abbas, on his part, is quite clearly eager to negotiate a two-state solution...He has not, however, made clear commitments about what he is prepared to accept, and he has been reluctant to enter into unconditional negotiations because of his political limitations. He does not, personally, have a strong political base, and he is not in control of Gaza... The failure so far to reach a negotiated agreement, along with the changing realities on the ground - the growth of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the building of separate roads, the confiscation of land, the construction of the security barrier, the proliferation of checkpoints, the development of Jewish housing in East Jerusalem - have led increasing numbers of Palestinians to the conclusion that a two-state solution is no longer possible.8
The failure of both sides’ leadership to even make it to the negotiating table has diminished confidence in elected politicians and the process itself among both the Palestinian and
Jewish populations. The unwillingness of political leaders to advocate for necessary sacrifices, the continual blaming of the other side as not being a partner for peace, and the introduction of several “peace plans” that are both unrealistic and do not take the considerations of each side seriously continue to plague the political peace process. While some analysts remain optimistic and believe a political resolution is possible, a notion I do not dispute, it does not seem that that possibility will materialize any time in the immediate future.
Secondly, a political solution within the Arab-Israeli conflict has little capacity to fundamentally change on-the-ground relations between the two parties as well as current
Israeli societal structure. The majority of encounters between Arabs and Jews within Israel are defined by negative circumstances, resulting in perceptions by some members of the
8 Herbert Kelman, “A One-Country / Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict,” Middle East Policy Journal 18, vol. 1 (2011): 28. 5 opposite population as “the enemy.” As is common in intractable conflicts spanning multiple generations, these perceptions can become ingrained in each side’s national consciousness.9 Bargal and Sivan explain,
Each party feels it has the sole claim to justice and legitimacy, and views itself as the main victim of the conflict. To reinforce the adversary’s alleged negative attributes, each side adopts a set of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral mechanisms that emphasize and perpetuate erroneous perceptions of the other. This is done by using cognitive beliefs that support and justify each party’s image of itself and of the other side.10
Some Israelis perceive Arabs as constituting a “hostile minority” and a security risk.11 For example, Ifat Maoz researched how Jewish-Palestinian youth encounter workshops affect relations between the two populations within Israel. Maoz’s team conducted extensive interviews with participants in order to gauge how each group perceives the other prior to the workshop. Unsurprisingly, each side demonstrated very limited prior knowledge and mutually negative perceptions of the other side, or the “out-group.” According to Maoz,
“Both Jewish-Israeli and Palestinian youth described themselves as having highly negative conceptions of the other as threatening, violent, murderous and inhuman.”12 Jewish individuals described the media as their primary source of information about Palestinians, which generally depicted them as “violent, wild and irrational terrorists and stone
9 Siman Bargal and Emmanuel Sivan, “Leadership and Reconciliation” in From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation, ed. Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 125. 10 Bargal and Sivan, 125. 11 Majid Al-Haj, “Multiculturalism in Deeply Divided Societies: the Israeli Case,” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26 (2002): 173. 12 Ifat Maoz, “An Experiment in Peace: Reconciliation-Aimed Workshops of Jewish-Israeli and Palestinian Youth,” Journal of Peace Research 37, no. 6 (2000): 727. 6 throwers.”13 For Palestinian participants, their perception of the Jewish population was similarly negative. They viewed members of the Jewish population as embodying, “the forceful harsh and violent Israeli soldier.”14 Maoz explained,
This image was created either through direct encounters they or their family members had with these soldiers or through mediated information such as accounts of other Palestinians on their experience with Israeli soldiers or television news reports...Palestinians described interactions with Israeli soldiers as involving violence and humiliation.15
Fearful perceptions of the “other” as a violent enemy are ingrained within the national narrative of both populations. Any voluntary interaction between members of each community may be perceived as taboo and clouded in tension. These sentiments were repeatedly echoed during my time studying coexistence organizations in Israel. One representative explained:
Most Jewish kids haven't met any Arabs in Israel...so what we do know is what we know from the media, and that is either nothing or more politics-related, violence- related, conflict-related notions that reinforce stereotypes...and the people who bring us this media are Jews as well. So what we get to know as kids, as grown-ups even, in Israel is what Jews tell us about Arabs...alienation and fear of each other is very strong.16
One method that has proved successful in a variety of contexts in reducing negative stereotypes and prejudice between groups is through positive intergroup interactions. This is the crux of intergroup contact theory, which is explained in more depth in the next section. The current spatial and social segregation of Jews and Arabs in Israel results in
13 Maoz, 728. 14 Maoz, 728. 15 Maoz, 729. 16 Mazor, Ya’ala. “Promoting Shared Society at the Policy Level.” Lecture at Hebrew University, January 9, 2020. 7 extremely limited opportunity for organic interactions between the two populations. For the most part, neighborhoods, schools, and businesses are completely separate. Ninety percent of Arabs living within Israel’s borders live in separate localities and use separate institutions.17 Even in areas that are generally characterized as “mixed,” separation still exists. A study by Ghazi Falah investigating the extent of separation in five areas that are considered to be mixed Arab-Jewish cities (Acre, Haifa, Jaffa, Lydda, and Ramla) found that all five cities experienced a trend of high indices of segregation and hyper-separation; these communities continue to become more segregated over time (with the exception of
Acre).18 Falah purports that these findings are consistent with “persistent life pattern strategies among Jews in Israel of keeping their distance from non-Jews.”19 He highlights the role of ideology in promoting and maintaining segregation, explaining,
Residential segregation is viewed here as encouraged and generated by a state ideology bent on maintaining a specific national character, Israeli society’s ‘Jewishness.’ Purification of places is an inevitable outcome of such an ideologically powered dynamic of spatial and social bifurcation; state policy that constructs and inculcates a civil religion centered on preserving and enhancing the Jewish character of the state.20
Empirical data from the same study indicated that in all five cities the scope of interaction between Jews and Arabs in the social and economic arenas remains very low.21
Individuals who did identify as having friends or neighbors from the opposite population
17 Sammy Smooha, Arabs and Jews in Israel: Change and Continuity in Mutual Intolerance (Boulder: Westview Press, 1992), 243. 18 Ghazi Falah, “Living Together Apart: Residential Segregation in Mixed Arab-Jewish Cities in Israel,” Urban Studies 33, no. 6 (1996): 854. 19 Falah, 851. 20 Falah, 824. 21 Falah, 855. 8 were asked how frequently they go to visit them: 5.2 percent of Arabs reported visiting their Jewish friends or neighbors “very often,” while zero percent of Jewish respondents described visits with Arab friends or neighbors as occurring “very often.”22 Although the level of willingness to interact and build relationships appears low within both populations,
Falah reported the Jewish population demonstrated a higher degree of “restraint and selectivity, while the Arabs have few genuine hesitations”23 in interacting with members of the opposite population. Falah suggests that it is natural for the minority group to push for more integration and co-existence than the dominant group; “This tendency is a kind of self-realization, and an attempt to gain greater recognition and access for shared resources.
In contrast, the charter group usually takes things for granted and enjoys substantial political and institutional support.”24 This is the case of the Jewish population, as they have no need or incentive to reach out and engage with members outside of their community. In addition to stressing the importance of state-sponsored assimilation policies which he acknowledges is unlikely, he cites mixed schooling as a potential opportunity for integration and increased interaction between the two populations.25
22 Falah, 851. 23 Falah, 851. 24 Falah, 855. 25 Falah, 855. 9 Chapter 2: Social Contact Theory & Encounter Groups
One way to initiate reconciliation is through so-called encounter groups, when organizations create a space for meaningful and productive interactions between the two populations to challenge “in-group” versus “out-group” societal norms. Two organizations that serve as the primary case studies for this paper are Hand in Hand (HIH) and Sadaka-
Reut (SR). Hand in Hand has established schools that are bilingual and foster Arab-Jewish shared education. Sadaka-Reut is an Arab-Jewish youth partnership organization working toward a binational society. Both groups operate within Israel and encourage encounters between Arab and Jewish Israeli citizens. Each of these groups has unique tactics, however the theory that serves as the foundation for these organizations is not new. Encounter groups in general are based on social contact or intergroup contact theory, articulated by social psychologist Gordon Allport in his 1954 publication The Nature of Prejudice.
Allport argues that contact between members of different groups can reduce prejudice and intergroup conflict, resulting in improved relations between members of differing groups.
Essential to the reconciliation process, encounters have been successful in different contexts among various in-groups and out-groups, most notably in changing attitudes toward the elderly,26 people who identify as LGBT,27 and individuals with mental illness.28
26 Avshalom Caspi, “Contact Hypothesis and Inter-age Attitudes: A Field Study of Cross-age Contact,” Social Psychology Quarterly 47 (1984): 74-80. 27 Gregory M. Herek and John P. Capitanio, “‘Some of My Best Friends’ Intergroup Contact, Concealable Stigma, and Heterosexuals’ Attitudes Toward Gay Men and Lesbians,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 22, no. 4 (April 1996): 412–24. 28 D.M. Desforges et al., “Effects of Structured Cooperative Contact on Changing Negative Attitudes Toward Stigmatized Social Groups,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60, no. 4 (1991): 531- 544. 10 SOCIAL CONTACT THEORY CONDITIONS Allport suggests that four key conditions must be met in order for positive attitudinal changes to occur: equal status, common goals, intergroup cooperation, and the support of authorities, law or custom.29 The four conditions, as well as a proposed fifth condition, are outlined below:
First, for encounters to succeed, each group must perceive equal status in the situation. Research suggests that when this feature is achieved, positive intergroup attitudes are produced, even when the groups initially differ in status.30 Allport stressed equal group status “within the situation,” not necessarily equal status outside the encounter environment.31
Allport’s second condition requires groups to actively work together toward a common goal. Pettigrew explains,
Prejudice reduction through contact requires an active, goal-oriented effort. Athletic teams furnish a prime example. In striving to win, interracial teams need each other to achieve their goal. Goal attainment, such as a winning season, furthers this process.32
In the case of shared education, for example, each group shares the common objective of learning. Students of both populations work toward a shared goal of solving a math problem, deciphering a reading passage, or striving to understand a difficult concept
29 Thomas F. Pettigrew, “Intergroup Contact Theory,” Annual Review of Psychology 49 (1998): 66 30 James Moody, "Race, School Integration, and Friendship Segregation in America," American Journal of Sociology 107, no. 3 (November 2001): 679-716. 31 Pettigrew, 66. 32 Pettigrew, 66. 11 through discussion. These experiences are collaborative within the environment of the classroom.
Allport’s third condition stipulated that the encounter must foster intergroup cooperation rather than competition; no group should gain at the cost of the other group.
“Attainment of common goals must be an interdependent effort without intergroup competition...intergroup cooperation in schools provides the strongest evidence.”33
Allport’s final condition discussed the necessity of attaining the support of authorities, law, or custom. Intergroup encounters are more likely to be effective in producing change if they are officially sanctioned by authorities or by custom, as “authority support establishes norms of acceptance.”34 Case studies of encounters within the military, business, and religious institutions have documented these outcomes.35
Justification for a Fifth Condition: Friendship Potential A fifth condition for intergroup contact theory that was alluded to by Allport when he favored intimate to trivial contact36 and made explicit by Pettigrew is the intergroup interaction’s potential to form a long-term close relationship, or friendship. This requirement takes the frequency and length of time of encounters into account. The well- known “Robbers’ Cave” study conducted by Muzafer Sherif supports the need for long- term and repeated contact, as the results demonstrated that short-term intergroup contact
33 Pettigrew, 67. 34 Pettigrew, 67. 35 Pettigrew, 67. 36 Pettigrew, 76. 12 was “minimally effective”37; only after repeated contact between in-group and out-group members did positive results emerge.38 Pettigrew states that “Optimal intergroup contact requires time for cross-group friendship to develop”39 and suggests a reformulation of intergroup contact theory to include a long-term perspective. He describes,
Such a revised perspective explains why extended intergroup contact often has more positive results than either the contact hypothesis or cognitive analyses predict. The power of cross-group friendship to reduce prejudice and generalize to other outgroups demands a fifth condition for the contact hypothesis: the contact situation must provide the participants with the opportunity to become friends. Such an opportunity implies close interaction that would make self-disclosure and other friendship-developing mechanisms possible. It also implies the potential for extensive and repeated contact in a variety of social contexts.40
Stuart Cook, whose research on effects of racial prejudice on society directly contributed to the 1954 landmark case Brown v. The Board of Education,41 also reported on the potential for the formation of a close and long-term relationship to be an important category of analysis. He referred to this factor as “acquaintance potential” defining it as,
“the opportunity provided by the situation for the participants to get to know and understand one another.”42 Cook stated that interaction can affect social acceptance, explaining,
Two situations which are equivalent in acquaintance potential may, however, differ considerably in their implications for social acceptance. By this variable we mean the extent to which participation in a given situation with another individual implies that one is willing to accept him as a social equal, and, at least potentially, as a
37 Pettigrew, 76. 38 Pettigrew, 69. 39 Pettigrew, 76. 40 Pettigrew, 76. 41 Shawn G. Kennedy, “Stuart W. Cook, 79, Psychologist Who Revealed Effects of Racism,” The New York Times (March 1993): 7. 42 Stuart W. Cook, “The Systematic Analysis of Socially Significant Events: A Strategy for Social Research,” Journal of Social Issues 18, no. 2 (1962): 75. 13 friend. An indication of the degree to which an activity is defined as implying social acceptance is provided by the strength of the tendency in the culture to restrict one’s participation in the activity to situations in which the other participants are of equal or superior social status.43
Cook provides the example of eating together versus working together. Eating together implies greater social acceptance than working together, as there is a greater tendency to restrict participation in sharing a meal than in the context of working together to complete a task.44 This dimension of social acceptance should also be considered when evaluating the types of activities an encounter group chooses to engage in.
This fifth stipulation “friendship potential” will be added to the four conditions set forth by Allport. An analysis of whether a program creates encounters that have friendship potential would examine the quality of the encounters (trivial or intimate), the length of time in which encounters are occurring, and the encounter activity’s implication for social acceptance.
BACKGROUND TO ENCOUNTER GROUPS This section discusses the history and development of coexistence organizations and common challenges/limitations that affect their reconciliation potential. Mohammed
Abu-Nimer divides the history of coexistence and encounter programs in Israel into three phases: security; cultural; and prejudice reduction, as discussed below.
The first phase is the “security organization” phase which began in the 1950s and operated until the early 1970s. These programs, formed in association with Israeli national
43 Cook, 75. 44 Cook, 76. 14 security organizations,45 were the first groups to mobilize engagement among the Arab population in Israel, and did so for political gain. As Abu-Nimer explains, “They operated in the service of the status quo and as de facto security services as well as political representatives to mobilize Arab voters whose support symbolized loyalty to the state of
Israel.”46 While encounters were taking place in this stage, they took place within the context of “loyalty to Israel.” Participation in these programs required that Arabs conform to fit the idea of a uninational framework, and those that did not choose to subscribe to this ideology “remained hidden to most members of Jewish society.”47 Security-focused encounter programs were not successful in engaging in productive dialogue, as the
Palestinians’ and Israelis’ assumptions did not acknowledge the reality of a binational society.
The second phase of coexistence programs took place from the 1970s to the early
1980s and consisted of encounters within a “cultural” context. Abu-Nimer suggests that this phase was facilitated by the “‘discovery’ of Arab culture by the Israeli government and society.”48 Arabs living in Israel were encouraged to integrate into Israeli life via “cultural encounters” with the Jewish population. These encounters “provided Jewish participants with an opportunity to learn about the Arab minority, as well as about Arabs, in general, through food, folklore, dancing, and other practices.”49 The cultural approach focused
45 Mohammed Abu-Nimer, “Education for Coexistence and Arab-Jewish Encounters in Israel: Potential and Challenges,” Journal of Social Issues 60, no. 2 (2004): 408. 46 Abu-Nimer, 408. 47 Abu-Nimer, 408. 48 Abu-Nimer, 408. 49 Abu-Nimer, 409. 15 primarily on the development of intercultural sensitivity, and encounters groups
“developed coexistence activities that reflected the burgeoning awareness of the Jewish public.”50
The “prejudice-reduction” approach to coexistence, which represents many of the present-day encounter programs, began in the late 1970s to the early 1980s.51 Rather than encounters that intentionally avoided sensitive or politicized topics, organizations encouraged activities that centered on “reducing stereotypes and increasing cultural sensitivity and understanding.”52 By the early 1980s, it was found that organizations had begun to replace the prejudice reduction approach with a “conflict approach.” “Unlike the cultural or prejudice reduction phases, the conflict approach does not privilege cultural harmony but recognizes the inherent role of conflict in Arab-Jewish relations.”53 These assumptions recognize the reality of the conflict, which allows participants to discuss and confront core issue.
Abu-Nimer acknowledges that the conflict approach adopted by later Arab-Jewish encounter programs has contributed to their development, however he argues that this approach “still offers only a passive approach to analyzing conflict.”54 While encounter group activities incorporating dialogue that confronts the reality and implications of the conflict has better outcomes than prior approaches, he argues that recognition and action concerning structural issues within Israeli society from the conflict is needed for true
50 Abu-Nimer, 408. 51 Abu-Nimer, 409. 52 Abu-Nimer, 409. 53 Abu-Nimer, 409. 54 Abu-Nimer, 409. 16 reconciliation among both populations. He states that acknowledging the conflict is not enough, as it “neglects the social and political elements of change and the structural sources of power imbalances and emphasizes the need for individual, rather than collective, attitudinal adjustments.”55
Based on the coexistence groups included in Abu-Nimer’s study, “...many researchers charge that ‘contact programs’ or Arab-Jewish encounters, have been structured and used in an asymmetrical fashion, placing Arab participants at a disadvantage.”56 As such, the first condition of Allport’s social contact theory is not met; the two groups do not reach “equal status” within the encounter environment, and the needs of one group is prioritized over the other. Neither HIH nor SR were included in Abu-
Nimer’s analysis. These encounter programs focus specifically on education to “correct” these power asymmetries in order to achieve equal status. These organizations’ philosophy of equality and structure enable them to facilitate reconciliation by confronting the issues that many past programs fell short of addressing.
55 Abu-Nimer, 409. 56 Abu-Nimer, 410. 17 Chapter 3: Hand in Hand Case Study
EDUCATION IN ISRAEL Hand in Hand focuses on bilingual Arab-Jewish education. To comprehend the program’s exceptional nature, it is critical to also understand the way in which the Israeli education system is structured. Israel has multiple separate public education systems: an
Arabic system and a Jewish/Hebrew system which encompasses both religious and secular streams. Arab families are able to send their children to Jewish schools; some (albeit few) do, although the reverse is generally rare.57 The Jewish/Hebrew system is divided into four subcategories or “streams.” A state/secular stream provides instruction on Jewish religious history and religious texts despite being labeled “secular.” A state-religious stream includes a full curriculum on both secular and religious subjects. A Haredi system focuses on religious education particular to the Haredi population. The fourth stream is “Shas” education, a “Mizrahi alternative” in-between the Haredi and state-religious models with an emphasis on Sephardic Orthodox teachings.58 While the Ministry of Education oversees and funds the entire country’s public school system, each municipality has its own education department overseen by the mayor and a local council. Each municipal leadership can approve customized education programs and make decisions regarding local issues, which provides municipalities with some degree of autonomy from the Ministry.59
57 Faisal Azaiza, Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitz, and Aura Mor-Sommerfeld, “Into the Future: Toward Bilingual Education in Israel,” Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 2, no. 1 (2007): 8. 58 Barry Rubin, Israel: An Introduction (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), 179. 59 Rubin, 179. 18 Segregation by nationality dominates the Israeli education system.60 Even in towns with mixed populations, “schools differ in language of instruction, curriculum (particularly in the humanities and social sciences), and budget allocations.”61 According to Abu-Saad,
“Although the subdivisions in the educational system give it an appearance of accommodation of cultural differences and educational pluralism, they exist more for the purpose of serving the interests of the dominant (Jewish) ethnic group…”62 The hegemony of the Jewish character of the state is reflected in the history curriculum set forth by the
Ministry of Education. The Ministry does not allow Arab public schools to have free reign over what they choose to teach in regard to their narrative of Israel’s national history or culture.63 For example, they are not permitted to teach about the Nakba, the Palestinian understanding of the creation of Israel.64 A study conducted by Majid Al-Haj of Haifa
University tracing history curriculums in Arab and Jewish public schools in Israel over the course of fifty years concluded that the asymmetrical relationship that exists between Jews and Arabs in Israel was reflected in the Israeli education system.65 Al Haj explained,
The message that has been internalized by Jewish students is that Israel is a Jewish state and for Jews; there has been no attempt to foster a civic culture in which the Arab citizens are a separate but equal component. On the other hand, Arab students are called on to accept this situation of identification with the state, although its nature remains vague and unlike Jewish students, they are not called on to play an active role in it…The Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian conflict that stands at the center of the curriculum for Jewish schools is presented in a one-way fashion that
60 Azaiza, Hertz-Lazarowitz, and Mor-Sommerfeld, 8. 61 Ismael Abu-Saad, “State-Controlled Education and Identity Formation Among the Palestinian Arab Minority in Israel,” American Behavioral Scientist 49, no. 8 (April 2006): 1088. 62 Abu-Saad, 1088. 63 Nele Colsch, “Potential and Limitations of Peace Education in Israel: A Case Study on Parents’ Perspectives on the Hand in Hand School in Jerusalem,” Gender and Diversity 3 (2011): 24. 64 Colsch, 24. 65 Al-Haj, 181. 19 corresponds to the Jewish-Zionist narrative, with no expression of the Palestinian or pan-Arab narrative. By contrast, the history curriculum for Arab schools refers to the conflict in a balanced fashion with a dry presentation of the historical facts from the points of view of the Jewish people and of the Palestinian-Arab people.66
This sentiment of inequality and segregation in the Israeli public school system was affirmed by Hand in Hand representative and co-manager at the Jewish-Arab Center for peace Ayelet Roth. She explained,
The education in Israel is segregated – completely segregated. I am not sure that you can imagine what it means because in the United States, it is not like that, at least not by law or definition…[In Israel] there is a different law of education for Jews and for Arabs. Different targets. Different obligations from the government of what to teach…It’s not only the education that is separated, the lives themselves are separated. An Israeli Jew does not have to meet an Arab in his whole life if he doesn’t want to meet an Arab. An Arab citizen has to meet the Jews if he wants to make a living, if he wants to study, if he wants to live. So it’s not equal, from the beginning.67 How do you promote coexistence in a radically separated society? Prior encounter groups that met infrequently in the context of an area outside of their normal daily lives and community rarely sought to facilitate the reconciliation. According to co-founders of Hand in Hand schools American social activist Lee Gordon (now director of American Friends for Hand in Hand) and educator and activist Amin Khalaf, the solution to creating meaningful encounters and address the criticisms of existing schools was to create a completely new system of education.
66 Al-Haj, 181. 67 Ayelet Roth, “Promoting Shared Society Through Education.” (Lecture, Hebrew University, January 7, 2020). 20 ORGANIZATIONAL OVERVIEW In 1977 “with the goal of initiating and fostering egalitarian, bilingual, multicultural education for Jewish and Arab children,”68 the first Hand in Hand school was created. As of 2020 there are now six Hand in Hand schools located in Galilee, Haifa, Wadi Ara, Beit-
Berl, Tel Aviv-Jaffa, and Jerusalem, with current plans to build a seventh school in
Nazareth Illit (Nog HaGalil). Class at most schools start in kindergarten and continue through twelfth grade. Hand in Hand schools are officially recognized and funded by the
Ministry of Education but also receive a great deal of their funds from private donors. The following section highlights characteristics of Hand in Hand schools, followed by an evaluation based on the five encounter conditions discussed previously, as well as recommendations for improvement.
Hand in Hand is best characterized by its intent to create an equal and binational education to the greatest extent possible. In a lecture at Hebrew University discussing Hand in Hand’s work, Ayelet Roth explained, “...If you want to create education that is equal, you cannot duplicate the reality that is outside…You have to create a surrounding that will be equal. Ten Jews, ten Arabs. Twenty Arabs, twenty Jews.”69 This was the philosophy that HIH’s first school was founded upon. In each school, fifty percent of the students are
Arab (both Arab Christians and Arab Muslims fall into this category) and fifty percent are
Jewish students. Every school has two principals, one Arab and one Jewish. In each class
68 Mendelson, Josie, “Hand in Hand: A Revolutionary Education Model for Israeli Arab and Jewish Children” in Beyond Bullets and Bombs, ed. Judy Kuriansky (United Kingdom: Praeger, 2007), 261. 69 Ayelet Roth, “Promoting Shared Society Through Education.” (lecture, Hebrew University, January 7, 2020). 21 there are two teachers, a Jewish teacher and an Arab teacher. In contrast to the rest of
Israel’s public-school system, HIH follows a calendar that celebrates all Jewish, Muslim, and Christian holidays.
Hand in Hand follows a bilingual education model that is unique in Israel in that it aims to place Arabic and Hebrew on equal footing.70 Other organizations have attempted to create bilingual schools but were not able to achieve the same level of success among members of both populations as HIH, which is today considered the leader in this type of bilingual education.71 The classroom structure and dynamic can be described as follows:
The two teachers in each class teach the children simultaneously both languages; however, nothing is translated, instead the teachers interact with each other, elaborating and elucidating each other’s sentences. Each teacher teaches in her native tongue, and the children are encouraged to answer in whichever language they feel comfortable.72
Students learn to read and write in both languages from the first day of class in order to develop biliteracy.73 Outside of the classroom, Hand in Hand offers a variety of different programs to students, parents, and the wider community. Such activities include joint holiday celebrations, film screenings, Arabic language classes for adults, cross-cultural dialogue meetings, and creating and maintaining community gardens. The most recent
Hand in Hand annual report highlighted these programs, explicitly stating their goal to
“amplify the impact of our schools through the activities of organized public
70 Muhammed Amara et al., “A New Bilingual Education in the Conflict-Ridden Israeli Reality: Language Practices,” Language and Education 23, no. 1 (January 2009): 19. 71 Amara et al., 19. 72 Mendelson, 262. 73 Colsch, 29. 22 communities.”74 Hand in Hand has also established an impressive alumni network that allows the schools’ near 500 graduates to continue their activism and stay connected through annual retreats and volunteering opportunities.
While the Ministry of Education provides Hand in Hand schools with the same amount of funding as a typical public school,75 this funding only covers about 46 percent of the schools’ total expenses. Hand in Hand schools’ operating costs require double the funds of other public schools, as their coeducational model must account for the salaries of two teachers per classroom, course materials in both Hebrew and Arabic, specialized curriculum development, and additional training and dialogue programming. Due to the higher costs, Hand in Hand charges roughly $1,200 in tuition per year, designated as
“parent fees” in their annual report. These fees account for thirteen percent of the budget, while the other fifty-four percent is garnered through philanthropy outreach and fundraising.76
ANALYSIS & EVALUATION The following section will evaluate the extent to which Hand in Hand schools meet the five criteria set at the beginning of the report: equal status, common goals, intergroup cooperation, support of authorities, law or custom, and friendship potential.
74 Hand in Hand Annual Report 2018-2019, 7. 75 Hand in Hand Annual Report 2018-2019, 35. 76 Hand in Hand Annual Report 2018-2019, 35. 23 Equal Status Hand in Hand’s structure and bilingual model of education fulfills Allport’s first condition of equal status. In creating Hand in Hand schools, it was absolutely essential that the number of students from each population are as close to fifty-fifty as possible; this structure creates a situation in which students are just as likely to interact with a classmate from the opposite population as they are with a member of their own group. While both groups may not perceive their status as equal outside of the classroom, Allport specified that perception of equality was needed only within the encounter setting. Hand in Hand creates an egalitarian model of coexistence while still maintaining each population’s individual heritage, identity, and language. Unlike other public schools, they follow an academic calendar that gives appropriate recognition to Jewish, Muslim, and Christian holidays, so that no group’s heritage and history are prioritized over another. Through stressing the importance of bilingualism, Hand in Hand directly addresses the structural issues of Israeli society – neither Arabic nor Hebrew assumes a superior position, a clear break from the norm in Israeli schools. The school’s bilingual policy is more than just a resource for communicating with others, it is used as an “instrument for inter-group relations” through which multiculturalism and a change of perspective is promoted.77 A comprehensive study of Hand in Hand documents concluded that their bilingual policy is
“instrumental in establishing mutual understanding and respect as it is for strengthening the self-esteem of the students belonging to the Arabic speaking minority in society.”78
77 Colsch, 27. 78 Colsch, 29. 24 Although the model is carried out to the best of teachers’ and administrators’ ability, challenges in achieving equal status and carrying out this style of teaching still exist.
Teachers must teach in a way they have never done before, in addition to sharing and comanaging the classroom with another educator. The Jewish teacher, which is used to being the “default” in mainstream society must give up privilege and authority. Roth explains these challenges and their significance in the HIH teaching model:
What does it mean to be a bilingual school in a society of conflict? First it means that the teachers are teaching in a way that they have never learned in or taught in…[the teacher] is going to be in a situation that he has never experienced…Two teachers are going into the classroom: the Jewish teacher and the Arab teacher. The Jews usually don’t understand the Arabic. The Arab teacher always knows Hebrew…it is not equal even in the classroom and in everyday reality. We are telling them [the Arab teachers], do not ever speak Hebrew in the class. You want the kids to know Arabic, you will speak your language. You will stand for your history, you will stand for your beliefs, stand for your culture and identity, and the Jewish teacher will do the same with the Hebrew. In order to give them a model, a model of living together…it is possible to live together, but if the two teachers are not making up, if they don’t manage each other, if they don’t work very well together, then the kids will never believe that there is a model that is successful for studying together…You have to give up a lot in order to be two teachers in the classroom. For the Jewish teacher, you have to give up privilege, you have to understand that you have privilege, that you are different and you have more than the Arab teacher always, wherever you go. The first person that people will reach out to will be the Jewish teacher, he’s an authority, because the Jews are the hegemony in the society in Israel… But if you are standing in the classroom, the two teachers have…the same status in front of the kids, and both of them have to be a source of knowledge, a source of authority, a source of everything, so it’s not easy for them. It is not a simple way of teaching and of living together.79
The data collected from the study of encounter groups discussed by Abu-Nimer suggests that a common limitation among these groups is their failure to recognize different
79 Ayelet Roth, “Promoting Shared Society Through Education.” (lecture, Hebrew University, January 7, 2020).
25 needs for each respective population, particularly the needs and goals of the Arab population. Hand in Hand specifically seeks to recognizes and address these differences through their coeducation model. In the classroom, the presence of Arabic is meant to challenge the dominance of Hebrew and both populations are encouraged to participate in the ways that they feel comfortable. A student raised in the HIH system is exposed to the other population’s narrative and lived experience, making them more likely to see members of the other population as their fellow classmates rather than as members of a particular
“out-group.”
Equal Status Regarding Bilingual Language Policy In evaluating Hand in Hand’s bilingual education model, its effectiveness to create an equal status environment appears questionable. Despite the policy’s aims to place
Hebrew and Arabic on equal footing, Hebrew remains the dominant language in most classrooms. In a two year study of Hand in Hand’s bilingual language methodology conducted at three different Hand in Hand schools, it was found that written materials used in the schools and produced by students maintained an equal balance of Arabic and
Hebrew, while Hebrew appeared to be the dominant language in classroom interactions.
Out of 314 written materials displayed in the classrooms of Hand in Hand schools, 141 were written in Arabic, 135 were in Hebrew, and the remaining contained both languages.
The study concluded,
The written languages in the classrooms are clearly biliterate. The biliteracy environment, as reflected in the signs, letters and numbers hanging on the walls, in the books available in the classrooms and on the trilingual computer boards (Arabic, Hebrew, English) reveals an attempt at language equality…However, this is not the
26 case in other aspects of language practice in the classroom. The language used in a given class depends on several factors including the subject, the teacher, the language teaching concept and the pupils’ interaction in the classroom.80 In some upper level classes, subjects are taught by either an Arab or Jewish teacher.
In classes taught by a Jewish teacher, the primary language used in the classroom is
Hebrew, both by the teacher and students of both populations. In classes taught by an
Arabic-speaking teacher, the study observed that both Arabic and Hebrew were used, with
Jewish students comprehending the lesson in Arabic and responding or asking questions in
Hebrew. Students are not required to use one language over the other, however Jewish students were generally found to use Hebrew in all classes while Arab students switched between Arabic and Hebrew depending on the teacher’s native language. In co-taught classes both languages were used to teach the lesson, while students tended to participate in their respective native language. “Regardless of the teachers’ linguistic background and the presence of only an Arab teacher or both teachers in class, Hebrew is always there; only its frequency varies.”81 The study noted, “More Arabic is used in classes with Arab and
Jewish co-teachers, but Hebrew is dominant even there, because the Arab teacher switches to Hebrew and the Jewish pupils almost always use Hebrew.”82
Does Hebrew’s dominance render the bilingual model completely ineffective?
Although Hebrew is more frequently used than Arabic, the HIH bilingual policy seems to be more successful attempting to balance the two languages in comparison to environments outside of the school. The study made clear that while Jewish students may use Hebrew
80 Amara et al., 23. 81 Amara et al., 25. 82 Amara et al., 25. 27 exclusively, they have the ability to comprehend Arabic and respond to it, and although infrequent, there are instances in which Arabic usage is required, such as reciting Arabic numbers in math class.83 Compared to their peers attending a public school, the Arabic language abilities of Jewish students enrolled in HIH are undoubtedly more developed as they are exposed to Arabic writing and witness the daily interactions of their Arab classmates. One twelfth-grade Jewish student explained, “We’re not 100 percent fluent in the language [Arabic], but we know so much more than the average person, and even that has a massive influence on Israeli society.”84
Written material, especially that of which is displayed in classrooms, creates a visually inclusive environment in which the Arabic language is more prevalent than in mainstream Israeli society. Equal linguistic status is not achieved, but it is comparatively more equal than other school or living environments in Israel, in which Arabic is not represented and carries substantially less cultural capital than Hebrew.85 There is not sufficient opportunity for Jewish students to use Arabic outside of HIH unless they belong to a mixed family. As such, the bilingual policy is operating in a flawed environment, as
Arabic students do have ample opportunity to use Hebrew outside of HIH, in some cases more than their mother tongue due to the dominance of Hebrew in Israeli society in general.
Many Arab parents choose to enroll their children in HIH Schools because they recognize the importance of Hebrew in Israeli society, as it is “unavoidable” when it comes to higher
83 Amara et al., 24. 84 “Hand in Hand 2017 Graduates, Parents & Teachers,” Youtube video, 2:08, posted by “handinhandil,” November 19, 2017. 85 Amara et al., 28. 28 education or seeking white collar jobs.86 HIH recognizes the flawed environment in which this model is being applied, in addition to the sacrifices Arab students must make even within an environment meant to champion coexistence and equal status. HIH co-founder
Amin Khalaf describes this trade-off:
There is a class between reality and the Hand in Hand vision. We must accept many intermediate solutions to keep the schools open. The schools are, and are not bilingual at the same time. They are bilingual from the perspective of the vision, but we accept middle solutions because of the outside world.87
In a series of interviews with parents of Hand in Hand children, a Jewish-Israeli parent said the dominance of Hebrew was equalized by the school’s agenda in other areas.
“According to him, the school creates a balance when considering the wider objective of equality of Palestinians and Jews in the school: with regard to language, Hebrew is dominant, but this is balanced by the stronger Palestinian narrative presented at school.”88
The parent explained, “If we speak about language the Hebrew is more dominant, but if we speak about the national narrative…the Palestinian national narrative I think is stronger.
So if you take the whole there is a kind of equality.” The study of the schools’ language usage as well as HIH parent interviews demonstrates that the organization makes a clear attempt to achieve equal status but is left with mixed results. It is difficult to determine the extent to which this status is achieved; compared to Israeli society, the HIH bilingual model creates a relatively more equal environment for Arab students. However, outside of a
86 Colsch, 45. 87 Amara et al., 28. 88 Colsch, 50. 29 relative context, there are many discrepancies that exist between the school’s vision of bilingual equality and the reality in which they are able to carry that vision out.
Common Goals & Intergroup Cooperation Members of both populations attending Hand in Hand schools have the shared goal of attaining an education in an environment of tolerance, equality, and respect. According to the 2018-2019 Hand in Hand Annual Report, students and their families must be committed to the mission of HIH, and
…Share a common pedagogical model of bilingual education and a basic underlying philosophy that all students and all teachers are equal and valued, that there must be mutual respect for the different traditions, religions and beliefs of the communities that they represent, and that we can agree to disagree on issues while remaining committed to continuing our education together and building resilient friendships across communities.89
Learning objectives also serve as common goals, as students of both populations must work together toward a shared goal of solving a math problem, deciphering a reading passage, or striving to understand a difficult concept through discussion. These experiences of intergroup cooperation are collaborative and made routine within the environment of the classroom.
While HIH takes pride in maintaining an environment of equality and integration, there are certain realities that come along with belonging to a certain population which create challenges for administrators and teachers. For example, Jewish parents of children
89 Hand in Hand Annual Report 2018-2019, 11. 30 who attend HIH often have different goals and expectations for their student’s education than Arab parents. Roth describes this challenge:
For the kids themselves…they don’t have the same needs in the classroom. And the parents want different things for the kids. Mostly, the Arab parents want the study to be more for achieving good scores and academic status in order to make sure that they will be able to go to a university. They need to know Hebrew very well; this is very important for them. Sometimes this is more important than to keep the Arab language, and this is a problem. For the Jewish, they want more open-study, project learning, mindfulness, all the stuff of the new-age studying...So the teachers and the principal have to deal with two agendas, different agendas of the parents, and sometimes of the whole village.90
Educators and administrators of HIH need to be able to deal with these different agendas while providing an equal education to both Jewish and Arab students. They are aware of this challenge from the outset and recognize that parents may not agree with all of the decisions made by Hand in Hand. However, they do require parents to make two commitments to the school before enrolling their children: they must agree to the school’s philosophy and volunteer their time to the school.91 Lea, a Jewish-Israeli parent of two HIH children, described that in spite of their ethnic or religious differences, there is a communal feeling among families that choose to enroll their children at the schools: “There is something about looking around you and saying everybody in this courtyard has been willing to overcome something to be here. And that in this very hostile, or not hostile, but tense, reality. That is very precious…”92
90 Ayelet Roth, “Promoting Shared Society Through Education.” (lecture, Hebrew University, January 7, 2020). 91 Amara et al., 19. 92 Colsch, 77. 31 Hand in Hand’s ability to foster intergroup cooperation is continually tested during times of heightened political conflict and war. Roth describes these challenges:
We also had times of war, we had to operate the school in times of war when Jews and Arabs are actually fighting each other, like in Gaza. And some of our Arab teachers have friends or families in Gaza. And it’s not easy to come in the morning to the classroom, when you co-teacher with someone who is having a child who is a soldier, who is fighting in Gaza. On the other hand, she has an Aunt, grandmother, sister who is living in Gaza, and they have to teach together and to co-manage. But if we can’t do it, we do not have the right to exist.
In contrast to prior encounter groups that Abu-Nimer described, Hand in Hand is forced to address the realities of the conflict head-on. Both the Palestinian and Jewish narratives are discussed, at times causing disagreements. In one case a second-grade Jewish teacher read an account of the events of 1948 that she believed to be accurate and fair, while the
Palestinian teacher found the book to be biased.93 However, it is their responsibility to be able to deal with these issues that inevitably arise and cause tension within the classroom.
According to HIH’s mission statement,
We do not ignore or gloss over past divisions or present differences. Our activity – both in schools and in the parent communities – is designed to face these challenges directly and to overcome their pernicious impact on Israeli society. Our schools and community activities show that ‘learning together-living together’ is not only theoretically possible, but currently a reality in parts of Israel today.94
Support of Authorities, Law, or Custom HIH schools are government-funded and part of the Ministry of Education public school network, which is a significant achievement in gaining the explicit support of authorities and social institutions. As indicated in their annual report,
93 Zvi Bekerman and Ifat Maoz, “Troubles with Identity: Obstacles to Coexistence Education in Conflict Ridden Societies,” Identity 5, no. 4 (November 2009): 347. 94 Hand in Hand Annual Report 2018-2019, 11. 32 We teach the core state curriculum, are subject to supervision by both the Ministry of Education and municipal education departments, and receive substantial financial support from the Ministry budget. The decision to build public schools reflects our commitment to the central role of the public education system in Israeli society – and our intention to impact that system.95
Within the schools, it is clear that norms of acceptance are already established by the very nature of the school’s purpose and structure. However, outside of the classroom, support for the school can vary. Schools in areas where intergroup relations are a constant source of tension will face more difficulty in facilitating encounters than in other areas. Roth discussed the difficulty building a school in Haifa, where the municipality was not supportive of building a HIH school as they feared they would lose money if the organization drew Arab students away from private Arab schools in the area. Although
HIH schools’ funding by the Ministry of Education signals authority acceptance, this also means that schools are subject to Ministry rules and regulations. While HIH has been able to work with these regulations for the most part, problems still exist, such as when the
Ministry refused to approve HIH’s inclusive holiday calendar at the Tel Aviv-Jaffa school.96
In Jerusalem, an area central to the conflict, there have been numerous cases of threats made against school students and administrators as well as issues of hateful graffiti.
In November 2014, two first grade classrooms were set on fire and defaced with slogans condemning students that attended Hand in Hand schools. The arson attack was meant to
95 Hand in Hand Annual Report 2018-2019, 11. 96 Ayelet Roth, “Promoting Shared Society Through Education.” (Lecture, Hebrew University, January 7, 2020). 33 demonstrate community resistance and disapproval of Hand in Hand’s presence in
Jerusalem; however, the community support the program received afterwards suggested otherwise. In the aftermath of the attack, hundreds of families and community members from all over Jerusalem came to show support for the school and its vision of peace. Justice
Minister Tzipi Livni and Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat, in addition to a number of other municipal officials, toured the school and offered their support and assistance.97 Roth reported that, “It was unbelievable how this bad event could make us feel so strong and so full of power and so full of hope, and the next year was the best year…everybody wants to donate and to help us stay alive.”98 The show of support from community members as well as government officials is essential for Hand in Hand to continue its mission, but the attack and other instances of antagonism these schools have faced speak to the way in which many people feel threatened by the organization’s mission of peace and coexistence.
Friendship Potential Hand in Hand Schools have a high friendship potential due to the frequency of encounters. Students interact in a meaningful and organic way all day, five days a week.
Students receive the encouragement of school leadership and their families that enroll them in Hand in Hand to build and support these friendships. The process of going through the same educational experience during formative years of life have the potential to create a strong bond among participants. The schools also provide numerous opportunities for
97 “Arson Attack at Hand in Hand School,” Jerusalem Foundation, accessed March 27, 2020, https://jerusalemfoundation.org/news-updates/2014/arson-attack-at-hand-in-hand-school.aspx. 98 Ayelet Roth, “Promoting Shared Society Through Education.” (Lecture, Hebrew University, January 7, 2020). 34 alumni to stay connected to HIH and their former classmates, including annual retreats, dialogue sessions, volunteering activities, and shared holiday celebrations.99
Given the highly segregated school system and the fact that Jewish parents do not send their children to Arab schools, educating group members together is not popular in
Israel. Hand in Hand’s encounter setting is exclusive, and therefore possesses a higher value for real social acceptance. Unfortunately, a byproduct of HIH’s uniquely high friendship potential is some participants’ fear of societal alienation. One Palestinian parent articulated her fears for her daughter: “I had fear about one thing, you know, that’s making my daughter grow up there I’m afraid about traditions, about society in our village, to get in deeply in the Israeli society… I’m not religious, but maybe if I was religious I don’t send my daughter there.”100 A Jewish parent linked her son’s dislike of the Arabic language to its marginal place in society, describing, “There is something about him that rejects
Arabness…I think it has to do with his idea, that Arabness is something marginalized in his society, it’s not something to be proud of.”101 Another Jewish parent worried about her son’s ability to get a specific job because he attended the HIH, explaining, “I want him very much to go to Intelligence and I have some doubts, maybe he will be excluded on security grounds, because he knows too many Arabs or something.”102 Even if success is made within the encounter environment, HIH participants still grapple with the social realities of attending a highly atypical, and in some spheres controversial, institution.
99 Hand in Hand Annual Report 2018-2019, 35. 100 Colsch, 69. 101 Colsch, 46. 102 Colsch, 59. 35 RECOMMENDATIONS
Create an Incentive for Jewish Students to Attend While Hand in Hand is generally one of the only choices for Arab students to receive an exceptional education due Arab public schools’ limited resources, Jewish students always will have a plethora of high-quality schools to choose from. To be effective in its mission, Hand in Hand must create an incentive for students of both communities to join. What attracts families to enroll their child in one school versus another? Many families send their students to HIH schools because they believe in the mission and values of the school. Others choose to send their children because of the value of knowing both
Hebrew and Arabic in an increasingly globalized world, or because it provides the best education in the area. Highly experienced instructors, high assessment scores, and the benefits of being bilingual are all potential areas of increased focus and advertising in order to attract more families and make a Hand in Hand education more normalized within Israeli society.
Improve Application of Bilingual Model The reality of Hebrew’s dominance in Israeli society and the difficulty of finding
Jewish teachers fluent in Arabic makes it difficult for HIH to effectively carry out their bilingual education model. Parents of HIH students point to this as one of the schools’ major problems in addition to inconsistencies of the bilingual model’s application, such as during parent-teacher conferences or on report cards.103 In regard to written communication
103 Colsch, 51. 36 and class materials, HIH should continue to make every effort to include both Arabic and
Hebrew. Maoz’s study concluded that in co-taught classes, the two languages were more equally represented than in classes taught by a single teacher. As such, ensuring that as many classes as possible are co-taught would be beneficial to creating more balance between the languages. However, carrying out co-taught classes in every subject and level is neither financially nor logistically feasible. As bilingual Jewish teachers are difficult to come by, a possible solution would be for HIH to consider adding additional Arabic language training for Jewish teachers so that they are able to engage Arabic-speaking students in their native language. Additional language programming may also be helpful for students if they feel they would like improve language skills, and they may be more inclined to practice their non-native language with their classmates. While none of these recommendations promise a solution to the discrepancies between the model of the school’s language policy and its application, they have the potential to place the two languages on a more equal footing by bringing more Arabic into the classroom, thereby challenging the dominance of Hebrew within the encounter environment.
Funding Hand in Hand should continue to maintain funding from and relationships with both the Ministry of Education as well as individual municipalities. A characteristic that differentiates HIH from other encounter organizations is its explicit support and recognition by an official Israeli institution. This support is essential to HIH’s expansion as well as continuation of the organization’s mission to make integrated education more
37 mainstream in Israeli society. Second, HIH should work to reduce its annual parent fees as much as possible. Ayelet Roth did mention that scholarship opportunities to attend the school were available, however the tuition fees required by the schools can be a prohibitive factor for families that do not have the means to send their children to HIH, or cannot justify paying the fees when there is a free public school alternative. Over the last four years, the parent fees percentage of HIH’s overall budget has remained static at twelve to thirteen percent.104 Increasing financial support received by international or local donors would allow HIH to lower this percentage and reduce tuition, making a HIH education a viable option to families of all socioeconomic backgrounds. As Ministry of Education funding only covers 46 percent of HIH’s annual expenses, it is necessary to look for other sources of funding in order to be able to reduce annual tuition. Although many HIH families and administrators think it is the Israeli government’s job to cover the additional 54 percent of the budget,105 it is highly improbable that the Ministry would agree to provide more money to HIH schools than they do to typical public schools. Most of HIH’s international philanthropic funding comes from North America, so seeking out other international donors is a potential new source of financial support.
Expansion While HIH has built an extensive network of participating families and students, the total number of HIH schools remains relatively small. HIH has the potential to expand
104 Hand in Hand Annual Report 2018-2019, 35. 105 Ayelet Roth, “Promoting Shared Society Through Education.” (Lecture, Hebrew University, January 7, 2020). 38 the number of schools and create classes for all grade levels at every school. HIH could attract new families by creating more pre-K grade and kindergarten grade levels, which are currently not included at all HIH schools. Expansion should focus on locations where segregation has affected families the most in order to provide an alternative bilingual education option to segregated schools. Hand in Hand has already begun to do this; in the latest 2018-2019 annual report, six new potential expansion locations were identified. In addition, plans for the opening of a school in Nazareth Illit (Nog HaGalil), an extremely polarized area in which thirty percent of residents are Arab yet there are no Arab schools, are already in motion.106
106 Hand in Hand Annual Report 2018-2019, 15. 39 Chapter 4: Sadaka-Reut Case Study
ORGANIZATIONAL OVERVIEW The second case study examines Sadaka-Reut (SR), another youth coexistence organization. Sadaka-Reut, which means “friendship” in Arabic and Hebrew, is a binational civil society organization that seeks to “address the deep-seated injustices cause by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by educating and empowering Palestinian and Jewish youth in Israel to pursue social and political change through bi-national partnership.”107 SR focuses on two goals: educating youth for social engagement and creating a joint partnership between Arabs and Jews living in Israel. SR’s annual report describes its goal of increasing interaction between Palestinian and Jewish individuals directly:
Palestinian and Jewish communities live in almost complete segregation. As a result, there is little to no interaction between the two groups, a separation that fosters widespread fears, racism, prejudice, and distrust towards ‘the other’. To address these challenges, we work every day to build alternative models for social interaction and political activism, creating a space in which Palestinian and Jewish youth may feel equal, respected and recognized as individuals and as part of their respective communities. We encourage youth to act together to bring about their vision of a shared, just society.108
SR applies a unique approach to achieve these alternative models for social interaction. Their flagship program, “Building a Culture of Peace” (BCP) implements a uninational-binational strategy. Rather than starting with a binational meeting, members of each population meet in uninational groups (made up of solely Jews or Palestinians) weekly over the course of a year. Although the two populations do still join on a monthly basis for
107 Sadaka-Reut Annual Report 2018-2019, 8. 108 Sadaka-Reut Annual Report 2018-2019, 12. 40 binational meetings, activities, and seminars, primary focus is given to the uninational meetings for the first year. Activities in uninational meetings focus on students’ personal experiences and challenge participants to recognize and address challenges in their own communities. Meetings cover a wide range of experiences and topics, often involving conversations about group identities within Israeli society, identifying and breaking down stereotypes, and group members’ experiences in dealing with more abstract issues such as the importance of identity within intergroup conflict.109 Through these discussions, students are encouraged to adapt a critical lens when analyzing social issues, something most have never done before. Ross explains that SR’s emphasis on utilizing participants’ personal experiences as a basis for discussion is ideologically rooted; “As an organization committed to empowering youth to pursue social change, it uses participants’ personal experiences as a starting point for creating connections to systemic issues.”110
A second benefit of meeting uninationally stressed by SR Co-Executive Director
Rawan Bisharat is that first year BCP groups provide a safe and comfortable environment for new participants.111 Surrounded by their peers, students are able to speak their own language to share their experiences and start difficult discussions with fellow community members. BCP groups then expand and transform into regionally based binational groups in their second or third year facilitated by a Palestinian coordinator and Jewish coordinator.112 Each of these binational groups, consisting of 10-20 participants on average
109 Karen Ross, “Promoting Change within the Constraints of Conflict: Case Study of Sadaka Reut in Israel,” Current Issues in Comparative Education 15, no. 2 (2013): 41. 110 Ross, 42. 111 Rawan Bisharat, “Arab-Jewish Youth Partnership.” (lecture, Hebrew University, January 8, 2020). 112 Ross, 39. 41 from both populations, work to plan and implement one or two social initiatives on key issues facing their societies.113 Notable initiatives include a campaign created by the SR group in Jaffa called, “Where’s the Arabic,” which sought increase the amount of Arabic signage on public transportation, as well as an initiative to map and paint over racist graffiti on the streets of Tel Aviv. These programs highlight the focus of SR, which is to promote
Arab-Jewish partnership as a framework for addressing social issues rather than simply focusing on the encounters themselves.114
ANALYSIS & EVALUATION
Equal Status SR’s framework of uninational activity within a binational framework is a critical step in fulfilling Allport’s first condition of equal status. The uninational-binational model may seem counterproductive to a group that seeks to increase interaction between the two populations – why wait until the second year to start meeting regularly with members of the “out-group”? According to one SR staff member, “binational meetings, if not preceded by extensive work, almost always reinforce dominant power dynamics in Israeli society.”115 Unlike Hand in Hand schools, which tend to start students interacting with other populations at a very young age, most of the participants in SR’s BCP programs tend to be older (programs start in late junior high), already attend segregated schools, and are not provided with bilingual training. Meeting separately as a uninational group in before
113 Sadaka-Reut Annual Report 2018-2019, 13. 114 Ross, 44. 115 Ross, 39. 42 moving permanently to a joint group aims to address differences in how Palestinian and
Jewish youth are socialized in Israeli society with respect to their identities: “…the strengthening of a unified collective identity among Jews, in contrast with the demolition of a Palestinian collective identity through a breaking of the connection between the past and present.”116 These differences “necessitate uninational work in order to strengthen
Palestinian collective identity and question the presentation of Jewish identity.”117 This type of work challenges Jewish hegemony and works to strengthen Palestinian identity, creating a foundation of equality that is necessary in subsequent binational meetings.
Students become more aware of the sociopolitical environment in which they live and are taught to approach social issues critically and recognize structural constraints in order to work against them,118 preparing them to interact on a more equal basis when binational groups are formed.
We can conclude that the SR actively promotes the fulfillment of equal status at least within the contact situation through the ways in which power structures are addressed in the one year of uninational activity. In addition, the types of campaigns they engage in promote equal status within society. The majority of their social initiatives are meant to create a more visually inclusive space for marginalized groups even outside of the contact environment. Seeing hateful graffiti crease a visually exclusive space and becomes an omnipresent reminder of the out-group’s exclusionary status, in addition to only having the
116 Ross, 43. 117 Ross, 43. 118 Ross, 46. 43 Hebrew language present in public transportation or street signs. These activities work to address and challenge the dominant culture of exclusivity. Activities such as working to erase hateful graffiti and add Arabic to public transportation are prime examples of such initiatives.
Common Goals & Intergroup Cooperation In Sadaka-Reut, intergroup cooperation is essential to completing social initiative projects of BCP binational groups. Members of both populations are engaging in a project together that fulfills a shared goal: to make Israeli society a more inclusive place, which provides a better future for both the Jewish population and the Palestinian population.
Volunteering and working toward a particular social issue, they are obligated to work together and rely on one another in order to fulfill this goal. As in Hand in Hand, Jewish and Arab coordinators of these groups must work together and cooperate in order to facilitate the program, creating a model of cooperation for the group’s participants.
Students understand that one group does not gain at the cost of the other.
Unlike Hand in Hand, participants in SR programs are likely to have the same goals and objectives because they voluntarily join the program rather than having a family member enroll them. Alumni of SR cited they were looking for a way to make a change, learn about different perspectives, or give back to their communities as the primary reasons for joining the organization. Joining and participating in social initiatives is completely voluntary, and those that do choose to participate can be assumed to be genuine in their commitment to SR’s mission of forming a true binational partnership.
44 However, while the work done in uninational groups appears to be successful in working toward a perception of equal status for both groups, there is no intergroup cooperation going on during the first year other than sparse monthly encounters with the other population. This structure could be improved to increase the number of binational encounters and therefore intergroup cooperation during the first year of BCP.
Support of Authorities, Law, or Custom In evaluating Allport’s fourth condition, it was clear that the organization faces difficulty in receiving the support of mainstream government or social institutions due to its reputation as a political pro-Palestinian organization. Unlike HIH which is funded at least in part by the Ministry of Education, SR operates in an unofficial capacity in that it does not receive any funding or other forms of support from the Israeli government.
Although SR is a binational organization working toward coexistence, it is largely viewed as an exclusively “Palestinian” movement.119 Ross describes this dilemma:
The organization does work to empower Palestinians and bring the Palestinian narrative into Israeli discourse, out of a conviction that doing so is critical for achieving a just future for both Jews and Palestinians. Yet within Israel’s current socio-political reality, attempts to promote equality by embodying it are perceived as antithetical to dominant societal narratives, thus resulting in accusations of promoting a Palestinian agenda. Ultimately, it appears that the organization’s image diminishes its ability to reach out equally to both Jews and Palestinians – more specifically, to Jews whose views fall into the mainstream.120
In challenging the dominant social norms in Israeli society by bringing Jews and
Palestinians together and promoting a “pro-peace” perspective, which Ross describes as a
119 Ross, 45. 120 Ross, 45. 45 marginalized perspective within the Jewish Israeli community, SR’s faces a great deal of suspicion from schools in the Jewish sector.121 This reputation can hinder SR’s ability to enter Jewish schools or recruit Jewish students to BCP.
Friendship Potential It is difficult to determine the friendship potential of SR. While the quality and work that Palestinian and Jewish students engage in is meaningful and has the capacity to build positive relations, questions about the frequency of these encounters arise when the attendance rate and number of overall students from both populations are examined. Ross observed that there was some difficulty in maintaining a high number of frequent attendees at meetings. In one such encounter meeting, SR was only able to attract four individuals who could commit to attending all the weekly meetings.122 In addition, as mentioned in the intergroup cooperation evaluation, binational encounters during the first year are limited to monthly meetings. There is a potential to increase the frequency of these encounters, and subsequently the encounters’ friendship potential, while still allowing space for uninational work.
Finally, in evaluating the second criteria of friendship potential, the exclusivity of the encounter activities done in SR volunteering and working together on a social initiative campaign- are high. One SR alum described SR’s activities as being “radical” in Israeli society, explaining, “I think that… the most radical thing that one can do in this country is to bring together Jews and Arabs. Because of all the strength, all of the effort of the
121 Ross, 45. 122 Ross, 45. 46 hegemony and of the authorities is directed at separation.”123 As such, any activity in which
Palestinians and Jews voluntarily come together and challenge the narrative of population segregation is a break from the norm in Israeli society.
RECOMMENDATIONS I have identified two areas Sadaka-Reut could improve upon in order to maximize their effectiveness as an encounter group: gaining societal support through reframing program perceptions and increasing friendship potential.
Reframe Program Perceptions As mentioned previously, some Jewish schools are suspicious of or feel threatened by Sadaka-Reut because they are perceived as a pro-Palestinian organization. These perceptions can impede the organization’s ability to recruit Jewish students. Young people from both the Arab community and the Jewish community are needed in order for the organization to fulfill its mission as a binational partnership and create an environment for productive encounters. I suggest SR focus its efforts on partnering with Jewish schools while branding themselves in a way that highlights the benefits SR activities have for both communities. Working toward making the organization known and accepted as well as demonstrating its binational nature are two efforts that would go a long way in boosting the organization’s success.
123 Ross, 44. 47 Improve Friendship Potential A second area that SR could improve is the organization’s friendship potential.
Working toward empowerment within a unilateral framework for the first year appears to be useful in changing identity perceptions, recognizing systemic issues within society, and establishing a foundational equality for when the two groups meet binationally. However, there is much less focus on binational meetings, which are the times when encounters take place and participants from different groups begin to form relationships with one another.
I recommend developing the second half of the BCP program and focus more on building interpersonal relationships early on in the program, which may involve increasing the frequency of binational meetings during the first year while students are still meeting within their separate groups. In addition, I suggest that SR continue to expand and find new ways to reach out and increase membership. Encounters appear to be making a meaningful difference in participants’ lives and motivating them to continue this type of work; Ross cites that out of forty-three SR alumni interviewed, nearly two thirds were “actively engaged with civil society initiatives aimed at changing Israeli society by promoting equality for all Israelis.”124 However, SR only reaches a few hundred individuals annually,125 compared with Hand in Hand which has over one thousand students enrolled.
One Palestinian alum explained, “[What Sadaka-Reut does] is very important, but unfortunately it isn’t going anywhere because it works at a very, very small level.”126 In
124 Ross, 46. 125 Ross, 47. 126 Ross, 47. 48 order to make a larger impact, a greater effort to market SR’s mission and attract more participants is essential.
49 Conclusion
The realities of living in a constant state of conflict are still very much present as coexistence organizations struggle to expand. Hand and Hand and Sadaka-Reut have remained resilient, forming amid the first and second Intifadas, a peak time of intergroup tension. The progress and growth SR and HIH have shown over the last several decades is a testament to the individuals, families, and communities that are committed to reconciliation and understand the importance of grassroots peacebuilding. While these two encounter organizations have succeeded in garnering a great deal of support on a communal level, it is difficult to continue to expand nationally without supplemental support. The success of these coexistence programs on a large scale requires the Israeli government’s public acknowledgment and financial support, in addition to the support and recognition of the international community.
In examining the ways in which participating members of youth organizations like
Hand in Hand and Sadaka-Reut have been able to transform their way of categorizing others, appreciate and listen to different perspectives, and become activists in their own right after graduating from these programs is evidence of the incredible potential encounter groups possess. While it is clear there is room for improvement, as neither organization managed to meet all of Allport’s conditions, the growth of and demand for the types of encounters that HIH and SR facilitate suggests the need to reexamine the way we approach deep-rooted conflicts, especially during a period of political gridlock. Long-lasting peace relies on the ability to engage in dialogue, listen to others, and build a sense of mutual trust.
It requires one to interact with an out-group member in order to break down the societal 50 categorization of these groups. Encounter organizations are not the solution to ending a conflict that has devastated several generations, nor do they claim to be. They are catalysts to the reconciliation healing process, which will extend far beyond any political resolution.
As one Hand in Hand family member said, “This school, right now, is not going to bring peace. It’s not going to solve all the problems. But when there will be peace, when there will be a solution, we already know what it’s like to live together. We don’t need to start to learn. We’ve already come part of the way.”127
127 “Hand in Hand 2017 Graduates, Parents & Teachers,” Youtube video, 2:08, posted by “handinhandil,” November 19, 2017. 51 Bibliography
Abu-Nimer, Mohammed. “Education for Coexistence and Arab-Jewish Encounters in Israel: Potential and Challenges.” Journal of Social Issues 60, no. 2 (2004): 405- 422.
Abu-Saad, Ismael. “State-Controlled Education and Identity Formation Among the Palestinian Arab Minority in Israel.” American Behavioral Scientist 49, no. 8 (April 2006): 1085-1100.
Al-Haj, Majid. “Multiculturalism in Deeply Divided Societies: the Israeli Case.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26 (2002): 169-183.
Amara, Muhammed, Faisal Azaiza, Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitz and Aura Mor-Sommerfeld. “A New Bilingual Education in the Conflict-Ridden Israeli Reality: Language Practices.” Language and Education 23, no. 1 (January 2009): 15-35.
Azaiza, Faisal, Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitz, and Aura Mor-Sommerfeld. “Into the Future: Toward Bilingual Education in Israel.” Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 2, no. 1 (2007): 5-22.
Bargal, David and Emmanuel Sivan. “Leadership and Reconciliation” In From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation, edited by Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov, 125-147. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Bar-Siman-Tov, Yaacov. “Introduction: Why Reconciliation?” In From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation, 111-124. Edited by Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Bar-Siman-Tov, Yaacov. “Israel-Egypt Peace: Stable Peace?” In Stable Peace Among Nations, 220-238. Edited by Arie M. Kacowicz, Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov, Ole Elgstrom, and Magnus Jerneck. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2000.
Bar-Tal, Daniel and Gemma H. Bennink. “The Nature of Reconciliation as an Outcome and as a Process.” In From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation, 111-124. Edited by Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Bekerman, Zvi and Ifat Maoz. “Troubles with Identity: Obstacles to Coexistence Education in Conflict Ridden Societies.” Identity 5, no. 4 (November 2009): 341-357.
Bekerman, Zvi and Michalinos Zembylas. “Education and the Dangerous Memories of Historical Trauma: Narratives of Pain, Narratives of Hope.” Curriculum Inquiry 38, no. 2 (2015): 125-154. 52
Bisharat, Rawan. “Arab-Jewish Youth Partnership.” Lecture at Hebrew University, January 8, 2020.
Caspi, Avshalom. “Contact Hypothesis and Inter-age Attitudes: A Field Study of Cross- age Contact.” Social Psychology Quarterly 47 (1984): 74-80.
Colsch, Nele. “Potential and Limitations of Peace Education in Israel: A Case Study on Parents’ Perspectives on the Hand in Hand School in Jerusalem.” Gender and Diversity 3 (2011): 9-119.
Cook, Stuart W. “The Systematic Analysis of Socially Significant Events: A Strategy for Social Research.” Journal of Social Issues 18, no. 2 (1962): 66-84.
Desforges, D.M., C.G. Lord, S.L. Ramsey, J.A. Mason, M.D. Leeuwen, S.C. West, and M.R. Lepper. “Effects of Structured Cooperative Contact on Changing Negative Attitudes Toward Stigmatized Social Groups”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60, no. 4 (1991): 531-544.
Falah, Ghazi. “Living Together Apart: Residential Segregation in Mixed Arab-Jewish Cities in Israel.” Urban Studies 33, no. 6 (1996): 823-857.
“Hand in Hand 2017 Graduates, Parents & Teachers.” Youtube video, 2:08. Posted by “handinhandil,” November 19, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IK9hbLt_LC4.
Hand in Hand Annual Report 2018-2019: Integrated Education in Israel, Creating a Better Future for both Jews and Arabs. Jerusalem: Hand in Hand, 2020.
Herek, Gregory M., and John P. Capitanio. “‘Some of My Best Friends’ Intergroup Contact, Concealable Stigma, and Heterosexuals’ Attitudes Toward Gay Men and Lesbians.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 22, no. 4 (April 1996): 412– 24.
Jerusalem Foundation. “Arson Attack at Hand in Hand School.” Accessed March 27, 2020. https://jerusalemfoundation.org/news-updates/2014/arson-attack-at-hand-in-hand- school.aspx.
Kelman, Herbert C. “A One-Country / Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.” Middle East Policy Journal 18, vol. 1 (2011): 27-41.
Kennedy, Shawn G. “Stuart W. Cook, 79, Psychologist Who Revealed Effects of Racism.” The New York Times (March 1993): 7. 53
Kelman, Herbert C. “Reconciliation as Identity Change: A Social-Psychological Perspective.” In From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation, 111-124. Edited by Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Maoz, Ifat. “An Experiment in Peace: Reconciliation-Aimed Workshops of Jewish-Israeli and Palestinian Youth.” Journal of Peace Research 37, no. 6 (2000): 721-736.
Mazor, Ya’ala. “Promoting Shared Society at the Policy Level.” Lecture at Hebrew University, January 9, 2020.
Mendelson, Josie. “Hand in Hand: A Revolutionary Education Model for Israeli Arab and Jewish Children.” In Beyond Bullets and Bombs, 261-266. Edited by Judy Kuriansky. United Kingdom: Praeger, 2007.
Moody, James. “Race, School Integration, and Friendship Segregation in America.” American Journal of Sociology 107, no. 3 (November 2001): 679-716.
Pettigrew, Thomas F. “Intergroup Contact Theory.” Annual Review of Psychology 49 (1998): 65-85.
Ross, Karen. “Promoting Change within the Constraints of Conflict: Case Study of Sadaka Reut in Israel.” Current Issues in Comparative Education 15, no. 2 (2013): 35-52.
Roth, Ayelet. “Promoting Shared Society Through Education.” Lecture at Hebrew University, January 7, 2020.
Rubin, Barry. Israel: An Introduction. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012.
Sadaka-Reut Annual Report 2018-2019: Arab-Jewish Youth Partnership. Jaffa: Sadaka- Reut, 2019.
Smooha, Sammy. Arabs and Jews in Israel: Change and Continuity in Mutual Intolerance. Boulder: Westview Press, 1992.
54